You are here: / Judges
, ,

COUNTY COURT, SUA SPONTE, IN GRANTING THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, RELIED ON FACTORS ABOUT WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED BEFORE THE SORA HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING AFTER PROPER NOTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the SORA court should not have, sua sponte, relied on factors for which defendant was not provided notice in granting the People’s request for an upward department. The matter was remitted:

County Court sua sponte relied upon certain additional factors for which defendant was not provided any notice — namely, that the points assessed under factor 4 did not adequately account for defendant’s prolonged course of conduct that continued over 21 months; that defendant was not scored any points under factor 7, which did not take into account defendant’s relationship with the mother of the victim that was arguably established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimizing the mother’s child; and that defendant’s psychiatric conditions and history increase his risk of reoffending.

With regard to these three additional areas of concern noted by County Court, “defendant was entitled to a sufficient opportunity to consider and muster evidence in opposition to the request for an upward departure” on the specific bases upon which County Court would rely in considering that relief … . “As defendant did not have notice or a fair opportunity to present arguments and evidence pertaining to those factors in the context of whether upward departure from the presumptive classification was warranted, the matter must be remanded for a new hearing, upon proper notice to defendant of the justifications relied upon by the People [and/or court] specific to their request for such relief” … . People v Furgeson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04644, Third Dept 9-26-24

Practice Point: A defendant is entitled to prior notice of the factors which will be considered by the court during a SORA risk-level assessment proceeding.​

 

,

A DEFENDANT, AS PART OF A NEGOTIATED PLEA AGREEMENT, MAY WAIVE A HEARING SEEKING A REDUCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, affirming defendant’s sentence after a guilty plea, determined that a hearing pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) seeking a reduced sentence can be waived. Therefore defendant’s negotiated plea agreement, which required her waiver of a DVSLA hearing, was valid:

… Penal Law § 60.12 contains no language requiring a sentencing court to hold a DVSJA hearing in every case containing allegations that the defendant is a victim of domestic violence, regardless of whether a hearing was requested, prior to announcing sentence. A defendant wishing to avail himself or herself of the possibility of a reduced sentence must instead request a DVSJA hearing to determine his or her eligibility before the sentencing court … . Where a DVSJA hearing is held, Penal Law § 60.12 provides that the court “may” apply the alternative sentencing scheme if the stated factors are established by the defendant. This permissive language reflects the Legislature’s intent that sentencing under Penal Law § 60.12 be an option exercised in the sentencing court’s discretion … . People v Hudson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04571, Second Dept 9-25-24

Practice Point: As part of a negotiated plea agreement, a defendant may waive a DVSJA reduced-sentence-eligibility hearing.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY HELD DEFENDANT, BY APPROACHING A JUROR AT THE JUROR’S HOME DURING DELIBERATIONS, FORFEITED HIS RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY A JURY OF 12; OVER A DEFENSE MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED BY A JURY OF 11 AND THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive decision discussing a defendant’s constitutional right to a trial by a jury of 12, over a dissent, determined defendant had forfeited his right to a 12-member jury by approaching a juror at the juror’s home as deliberations were proceeding. Over a defense motion for a mistrial, the trial judge ordered the jury to continue deliberations with 11 jurors. Defendant was convicted:

From the dissent:

… I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of my colleagues in the majority that the defendant’s New York State constitutional rights were not violated upon permitting the jury to proceed with deliberation and conviction of the defendant by an 11-member jury.

… [T]he New York State Constitution specifically guarantees defendants a right to a jury of 12 (see NY Const, art I, § 2; art VI, § 18; …). New York Constitution, article I, § 2 describes the right to a trial by jury as “inviolate forever” and requires the waiver of a jury trial to be achieved by “written instrument signed by the defendant in person in open court before and with the approval of a judge or justice of a court having jurisdiction to try the offense.” … [T]he Court of Appeals has determined that a defendant may, upon a written waiver executed in the manner specified by the State Constitution, consent to a jury of 11 if a deliberating juror becomes incapacitated and no alternate juror is available … * * *

Here, there is no dispute that the defendant’s conduct was egregious and unacceptable. He feigned an illness so that he could approach a juror, at the juror’s home, clearly in an attempt to influence his trial. While the defendant should not be permitted to “tak[e] advantage of his . . . own wrongdoing” … , I believe it was error for the Supreme Court to utilize the “extreme, last-resort analysis” of denying the defendant his inviolate right to a jury of 12 before considering alternate sanctions for this egregious behavior … . People v Sargeant, 2024 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 9-25-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant was deemed to have forfeited his right to a trial by a jury of 12 by approaching a juror at the juror’s home during deliberations. Defendant’s conviction by a jury of 11 was affirmed over a strong dissent.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MENTAL ILLNESS WARRANTED REDUCING DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE FOR ROBBERY TO THE MINIMUM, STRONG DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s sentence to the minimum for robbery, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, over a strong dissent, determined defendant’s (Mr. Sparks’) mental illness warranted a sentence reduction:

… [C]ontinued incarceration of Mr. Sparks serves none of the objectives of criminal punishment. In order to best protect the public, Mr. Sparks must get appropriate mental health treatment to rehabilitate him to a healthier mental state. His 12 years of imprisonment has only served to exacerbate his mental difficulties. There is no reason to believe that further incarceration will rehabilitate him, and the record clearly demonstrates that Mr. Sparks needs rehabilitation, not punitive incarceration.

Treating incarceration as the default response for individuals like Mr. Sparks has outsized deleterious consequences that, ultimately, make our communities less safe. As Chief Justice Wilson noted in his concurring opinion in People v Greene, “the cycle of incarceration further destabilizes these individuals; mental health treatment in prison is costlier than community-based treatment; individuals with mental illness are at greater risk of detention in prison and extended incarceration; prison mental health resources are often inadequate; and individuals living with mental illness face greater risk of harm and abuse while behind bars” (41 NY3d 950, 954 [2024] [Wilson, J. concurring]). While Greene involved a nonserious crime, the principle remains: default incarceration for crimes caused by mental illness is antithetical to the interests of our penal system. Deterrence cannot be accomplished for a person who was delusional at the time of a crime; and punishment for a person operating under delusions is not just. People v Sparks, 2024 NY Slip Op 04488, First Dept 9-19-24

Practice Point: The court here made the point that incarceration may not be the appropriate response for the mentally ill. The court noted that it has the power to reduce a defendant’s sentence for a violent crime, even when the defendant pleads guilty, based upon the defendant’s mental health.

 

,

FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1028 REQUIRES THAT THE COURT EXPEDITE A HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILDREN RETURNED TO HER; HERE THE HEARING WAS STARTED WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BUT WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS, A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering Family Court to expedite a Family Court Act Section 1028 hearing on mother’s application to have her children returned to her, determined the adjournments of the continuation of the hearing over a period of months violated section 1028:

Family Court Act § 1028 “provides for an expedited hearing to determine whether a child who has been temporarily removed from a parent’s care and custody should be reunited with that parent pending the ultimate determination of the child protective proceeding” … . Upon an application of a parent whose child has been temporarily removed, “[e]xcept for good cause shown, such hearing shall be held within three court days of the application and shall not be adjourned” … .

… [A]lthough the 1028 hearing commenced within three court days of the mother’s application, it did not proceed expeditiously. It is currently calendared with continued hearing dates through late October 2024, at which time the infant subject children will have spent more than half their lives in foster care. … The plain language of the statute requires expediency. Family Court Act § 1028 is distinguishable from other sections of article 10 wherein those sections call for hearings to be conducted within the Family Court’s discretion … . No such discretion is provided by the plain language of Family Court Act § 1028.

Under the specific time constraints detailed by the plain language of Family Court Act § 1028 and given the potential and persistent harms of family separation, the mother is entitled to prompt judicial review of the children’s removal “measured in hours and days, not weeks and months” … . Conducting this 1028 hearing over a period of 30 minutes of hearing time scheduled in March, four hours scheduled in April, three hours in May, and four hours in June cannot be deemed prompt or expeditious judicial review. Matter of Emmanuel C.F. (Patrice M. D. F.), 2024 NY Slip Op 04482, First Dept 9-19-24

Practice Point: Family Court does not have the discretion to keep adjourning a Family Court Act 1028 hearing on mother’s petition to have her children returned to her. Mother is entitled, by the terms of the statute, to an expedited hearing.

 

, , , ,

THE COVID-19 TOLLS AND THE COURT’S DELAY IN SIGNING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROVIDED A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS BUS ACCIDENT CASE; THE POLICE REPORT TIMELY NOTIFIED THE CITY OF THE RELEVANT FACTS; THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim in this bus accident case should have been granted. The COVID-19 tolls, and the court’s delay in signing the order to show cause, provided a reasonable excuse and the police report timely notified the city of the relevant facts:

In determining whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether “(1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits” … .

Here the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay, i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic, the tolls resulting therefrom, and the delay by the Supreme Court in signing the petitioner’s order to show cause.

Further, the petitioners met their burden of providing a plausible argument supporting a finding of no substantial prejudice. The happening of the accident and relevant facts were documented in a police report, and any prejudice was the result of delays resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, not the petitioner’s conduct. Matter of Ortiz v New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 04464, Second Dept 9-18-24

Practice Point: The COVID-19 tolls and the judge’s delay in signing the order to show cause provided a reasonable excuse for failure to timely file a notice of claim in this bus accident case.

Practice Point: The police report provided the city with timely notice of the relevant facts. Therefore the city was not prejudiced by the late notice.

 

,

TO BE ENTITLED TO A CHANGE OF VENUE AS OF RIGHT, THE DEMAND MUST BE SERVED WITH THE ANSWER OR BEFORE THE ANSWER IS SERVED; TO BE ENTITLED TO A DISCRETIONAY CHANGE OF VENUE, THE MOTION MUST BE MADE PROMPTLY AFTER LEARNING OF THE GROUND FOR THE CHANGE; HERE THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue should not have been granted. The summons indicated plaintiff’s residence was the basis of venue in Kings County.  Defendants did not serve a demand to change venue with their answer or before the answer was served. The motion to change venue was based upon plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he lived at an address in Richmond County. The defendants were not entitled to a change of venue as of right (because the demand was not served with the answer or before the answer was served), and the defendants were not entitled to a discretionary change of venue because the motion to change venue was not made promptly after plaintiff’s deposition testimony:

A demand to change venue based upon the designation of an improper county must be “served with the answer or before the answer is served” (CPLR 511[a]). Here, since no demand to change venue was served with the answer or before the answer had been served, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to change venue on the ground that the county designated was improper (see CPLR 510[1]) was untimely (see CPLR 511[a] …). Thus, the defendants were not entitled to change venue as of right, and their motion became one addressed to the Supreme Court’s discretion … .

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of their motion which was to change venue, since the defendants failed to demonstrate that they moved promptly for a change of venue after the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he lived at an address in Richmond County … . Aguilar v Reback, 2024 NY Slip Op 04444, Second Dept 9-18-24

Practice Point: For a change of venue as of right the demand must be served with the answer or before the answer is served.

Practice Point: For a discretionary change of venue, the motion must be made promptly after learning of the ground for the change.

 

, ,

THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PARENTS COULD NOT COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE DID NOT SUPPORT AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT IT UP TO THE PARTIES TO CRAFT A PARENTING-TIME SCHEDULE; A CHILD’S TESTIMONY IN A LINCOLN HEARING HAS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND MUST BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the record did not support sole legal custody of the child by father, and the judge’s delegating the arrangement of parenting time for mother was improper. In addition, the Third Department noted that statements made by the child to the court in a Lincoln hearing must remain confidential:

… [T]he record is devoid of any indication that the parties are unable to effectively communicate to meet the child’s needs, or that joint legal custody has been otherwise rendered unfeasible or inappropriate … . As the record lacks support for granting the father sole legal custody, we must reverse that portion of the amended order … . …

… [P]arenting time with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in a child’s best interests, and Family Court is required to craft a schedule that allows that parent frequent and regular access to the child, unless it finds that doing so would be inimical to the child’s welfare … . The court made no such finding here. Instead, Family Court improperly delegated the parenting time determination to the father, and this error requires reversal … .

… [W]e take this opportunity to remind Family Court that statements made by a child during a Lincoln hearing carry no independent evidentiary value …, and that such statements must remain confidential to protect children in custody proceedings “from having to openly choose between parents or openly divulging intimate details of their respective parent/child relationships” … . … [I]nformation shared by a child during a Lincoln hearing may serve “to corroborate other evidence adduced at a fact-finding hearing or to ascertain a child’s thoughts and feelings regarding the crafting of a custodial arrangement, [but] such considerations must remain silent to ensure that the child’s right to confidentiality is protected” … . Matter of C.M. v Z.N., 2024 NY Slip Op 04427, Third Dept 9-12-24

Practice Point: Here the court noted there was no proof the parents could not communicate to meet the child’s needs and, therefore, the record did not support the award of sole custody to father.

Practice Point: A parenting-time schedule must be crafted by the judge and not left up to the agreement of the parties.

Practice Point: A child’s testimony in a Lincoln hearing has no independent evidentiary value and must not be revealed.

 

, , ,

PLAINTFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT BEFORE GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the motion court should have first considered plaintiff’s (decedent’s) motion to strike defendants’ answer (for spoliation of evidence) before considering defendants’ motion for summary judgment (which was granted). Decedent alleged there was video footage showing the slip and fall which was overwritten 72 hours after the fall:

“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126” … . The Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction would be imposed for spoliation of evidence … . “The sanction of dismissal of a pleading may be imposed even absent willful and contumacious conduct if a party has been so prejudiced that dismissal is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness” …  “However, a less severe sanction or no sanction is appropriate where the missing evidence does not deprive the moving party of the ability to establish his or her case or defense” … .

A defendant whose answer is stricken is “deemed to admit all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability” … , and summary judgment is warranted in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability upon the appropriate motion … .

Here, since the decedent’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer or, in the alternative, for an adverse inference instruction at trial for spoliation of evidence sought sanctions that would impact the defendants’ ability to establish, prima facie, that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court should have considered the merits of the decedent’s motion before rendering a determination on the issue of liability on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them … . Hudesman v Dawson Holding Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 04307, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Where a plaintiff’s motion can affect a defendant’s ability to defend an action (here a motion to strike the answer for spoliation of evidence), that motion should be considered first, before considering a defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

 

, , ,

THE MOTION COURT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE CROSS-CLAIMS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should have considered the deposition transcripts, which were certified but unsigned, and should have granted defendant driver’s (Jara Mejia’s) motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the cross-claims. Jara Mejia’s car was stopped when it was struck from behind:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . In support of his motion, Jara Mejia submitted, inter alia, a transcript of his deposition testimony and transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs, Tsering, and Cruz Arce. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, Jara Mejia’s unsigned but certified deposition transcript was admissible, “since the transcript was submitted by the party deponent himself and, therefore, was adopted as accurate by the deponent” … . In addition, while the remaining deposition transcripts were also unsigned, they were certified and their accuracy was not challenged … . Thus, the deposition transcripts were admissible and should have been considered by the court on Jara Mejia’s motion. Gironza v Macedonio, 2024 NY Slip Op 04306, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Certified but unsigned deposition transcripts are admissible in support of summary judgment when submitted by the party deponent himself.

Practice Point: Certified but unsigned deposition transcripts are admissible in support of summary judgment when their accuracy is not challenged.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy